David Heinemeier Hansson wrote: >>>> So, let's put this to the test: >>>> >>>> 1) Should Mongrel support a larger set of default mime types? >>> >>> I'm strongly in favor of this. Especially for core defaults like xml, >>> atom, and rss. It would mean that Rails page caching would Just Work >>> even for these common caching types. >> >> Could you explain this? Mongrel is very unlikely to serve cached pages. >> That's usually handled by apache/lighty. I ran into this the other day >> and had to adjust my apache rewrite rules to look for cached .xml files >> rather than just .html files. > > There are plenty of situations where the load requirements do not > dictate involving another web server. It'd be nice if Mongrel was > feature-wise capable of standing on its own. Mongrel is still capable of > serving hundreds of static files per second on most machines. That's > plenty for a large array of applications, including predominately > internal ones.
Okay that makes sense then. I have never tried page caching with mongrel only. I know that on apache I need to add mod_rewrite rules for each mime-type/extension (or maybe there's a smarter way..) If I use the default rewrite rules a cached version of public/somecontroller/index.xml will never get served for instance, because it's looking for index.html. You're saying page caching on a mongrel only setup will just work as long as the mime-types are properly configured? Oh, and just out of curiosity, does 37 signals use mongrel or still lighty? Jeroen _______________________________________________ Mongrel-users mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
